Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

You said that some people out there thought the SS crew was justified in there actions. All I was saying is that there are also some people in the world who think the same thing about the actions that took place on 9-11. My point was not that what the SS crew did was just as bad as the 9-11 attacks but, that just because some people think it was justified doesn't make those actions acceptable. I think we can all agree that those attacks were not acceptable and, I believe that the SS crew's actions are also unacceptable (I don't care what there cause is).

Then I would not have used that analogy but you did. Many here are taking it way to far with opionions that have nothing to do with this show.

You don't have to kill thousands of people to be a terrorist. boarding a vessel, ramming it and throwing acid at its crew members certainy DEFINES watson and crew as terrorists. IMO, hoisting a pirate flag is enough to qualify. These clowns even advertise that they are terrorists with that.

So you are saying they ( any of the SS crew ) would kill that person or persons on the sole basis they are a whale hunter if they met face to face?

I'm curious for your response.

Now you're really stretching. How many people did the 19 hijackers kill in the months they lived in the US prior to 9/11? All the trips to the grocery store, strip clubs, etc. mingling with Americans and they didn't kill anybody.

Just because Watson is only targeting Japanese fishermen while they are on a ship doesn't make him any less of a terrorist. If he wimps out when face-to-face, it just makes him a hypocritical terrorist.

When deciding to ram that ship, he knew that he would be putting the lives of the people on both ships at risk. By doing it anyway, he made the judgment that his cause was more important than their lives. That's more than enough reason to blow him and his ship out of the water.

If he is so clueless that he did not know that ramming another ship is a potentially deadly act, then he does not belong behind the wheel of a ship and blowing him and his ship out of the water should be done as a public service.

Now you're really stretching. How many people did the 19 hijackers kill in the months they lived in the US prior to 9/11? All the trips to the grocery store, strip clubs, etc. mingling with Americans and they didn't kill anybody.

Just because Watson is only targeting Japanese fishermen while they are on a ship doesn't make him any less of a terrorist. If he wimps out when face-to-face, it just makes him a hypocritical terrorist.

When deciding to ram that ship, he knew that he would be putting the lives of the people on both ships at risk. By doing it anyway, he made the judgment that his cause was more important than their lives. That's more than enough reason to blow him and his ship out of the water.

If he is so clueless that he did not know that ramming another ship is a potentially deadly act, then he does not belong behind the wheel of a ship and blowing him and his ship out of the water should be done as a public service.

Did he do it intentionally? Or is he just a bad skipper? He has never said so.

Given his record of ramming other ships, saying it was unintentional might be hard to believe. If he's hit them because he's simply "a bad skipper", well, that's reason enough to remove him, isn't it ?

Did he do it intentionally? Or is he just a bad skipper? He has never said so.

He intentionally rammed into them - just as he intentionally was "playing chicken" earlier. The whole thing was seen on the finale.

You never navigate into, or close, to another vessel's course in open water because it can result in a collision that kills people. Doing so, then whining about the resulting collision is no excuse.

And yes he is a "bad skipper" because he puts the lives of his crew and the crew of other vessels in jeopardy. The combination of him being willing to attack others, and him being an incompetent skipper makes him a menace on the high seas.

You don't ram another vessel (puncturing a hole in your ship) unless you are willing to hurt, or kill, the people on that ship.

I did watch it.

What I remember is them trying to cut the line to prevent them from loading the dead whale to the process ship and when they got close, the bridge was blasted with a water cannon rendering visibility as useless. To say he did it intentionaly, when he couldn't see where he was going, is open to debate.

When deciding to ram that ship, he knew that he would be putting the lives of the people on both ships at risk. By doing it anyway, he made the judgment that his cause was more important than their lives. That's more than enough reason to blow him and his ship out of the water.

Now who is stretching? He didn't make any such judgement, it's called risk assessment. Funny how he was the one who said, "back off" when it became clear that the ships' collision was causing both ships to lean in a dangerous way. If his cause was more important than lives as you have declared as fact, he wouldn't have "backed off."

Also, your comparison of the SS to the 9/11 highjackers is just ridiculous and insulting. It's a lazy comparison.

Now who is stretching? He didn't make any such judgement, it's called risk assessment. Funny how he was the one who said, "back off" when it became clear that the ships' collision was causing both ships to lean in a dangerous way. If his cause was more important than lives as you have declared as fact, he wouldn't have "backed off."

Also, your comparison of the SS to the 9/11 highjackers is just ridiculous and insulting. It's a lazy comparison.

I didn't see both ships leaning in a dangerous way, I only saw the Steve Irwin leaning that way.

By definition according to Vurbo, with that statement you could be viewed as a terrorist.

Hardly, it has nothing to do with a political agenda. I'm more against whaling than for it, but I support sinking the SI as a measure to protect innocent lives at sea. And if the Japanese sink it, it is an act of self-defense. They don't even need to wait for them to get close, or to threaten them again. Their past actions are enough to act proactively.

Ideally, it can be sunk while docked with nobody on board. If not, then at least the loss of life will be limited to those that are actively engaging in activities that threaten the lives of others.

I didn't see both ships leaning in a dangerous way, I only saw the Steve Irwin leaning that way.

This will forever put to rest the notion that the SI was rammed. Video from the JP view clearly shows the extreme deck angle to the SI was caused by their own momentum and agressive right turn intentionally to ram the whaler. I'm tellin' ya, they need a sub.

Also, your comparison of the SS to the 9/11 highjackers is just ridiculous and insulting. It's a lazy comparison.

I have to agree with this. Comparing the Sea Shepherds to Al Qaeda is like saying Russel Crowe throwing a phone at a Hotel Desk Clerk, is the same as what the Manson Family did to Sharon Tate. The two aren't in the same ball park, it's not in the same league, hell... it's not even the same fraking sport!

The comparisons were only made to highlight the absurdity to claims that the SS were not terrorists - when the reasons given would mean Al Qaeda weren't terrorists either. Nothing to do with the "degree" of terrorist. The only thing lazy is failing to read enough of the post to see the distinction before going off halfcocked.

The comparisons were only made to highlight the absurdity to claims that the SS were not terrorists - when the reasons given would mean Al Qaeda weren't terrorists either. Nothing to do with the "degree" of terrorist. The only thing lazy is failing to read enough of the post to see the distinction before going off halfcocked.

So I guess we need a terrorist scale to rate the degree of harm or danger each group possesses then. Because that is basically what you have do if you are willing to make such comparisons that your statement above suggest. So according to you then, not all terrorist are created equal. Do I have that right? And where would you put the SS crew on your scale panther?